| 關 鍵 詞： |
違法授益行政處分；金錢或可分物給付；行政處分撤銷；信賴保護；溯及既往失效；返還所受領之利益 |
| 中文摘要： |
本文嘗試釐清授益行政處分撤銷的思考路徑與模式，期使此類案件的處理較為周延。在「違法授益行政處分撤鎖」制度中，立法者為了充分落實信賴保護原則並維護公益，設下了四個調控模式，讓執法者能在每個案例找到最佳的處理方案：
－「得撤銷」與「不得撤銷」之調控（行政程序法第 117 條第 2 款）；
－「溯及失效」與「不溯及失效」之調控（行政程序法第 118 條）；
－「返還（含返還範圍之決定）」與「免返還」之調控（行政程序法第 127 條）。
－「補償（含補償額度之決定）」與「不補償」之調控（行政程序法第 120 條）；
雖然有前述四項調控模式，但本文認為「金錢或可分物授益行政處分」撤銷案件僅需經由前二項調控模式（繼續給付事件）或前三項調控模式（一次性給付事件）加以處理即可。後階段調控並非被省略，而係融入前階段調控模式一併思考。現行實務多數案件並未明白針對「是否溯及失效」的問題加以審酌，似乎認為「撤銷就必然溯及失效」；而忽略了「是否溯及既往失效」這項調控工具。
最為棘手的問題是，在金錢或可分物授益行政處分撤銷事件中，受益人若已消費其所受領之給付，或者對此作成難以回復之處分，是否應即優先保障受益人之信賴利益？對此本文認為，首先應承認消費所受領之金錢或可分物給付亦可能為一種信賴表現；其次，應依具體個案中的種種情事通盤衡量，來決定處置之方案究竟是「撤銷且溯及失效」、「撤銷但不溯及失效」或者「不撤銷」。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Unlawful Beneficial Administrative Disposition；Money Payment or Delivery of Divisible Things；Withdrawal of An Administrative Disposition；Reliance Protection；Invalid Retroactivity；Return of the Received Benefits |
| 英文摘要： |
This article is aimed at the best approach for exploring the issues arising from the withdrawal of the unlawful-beneficial administrative disposition and the application of the rules to the cases. Under "the withdrawal of the unlawful-beneficial disposition" of the Administrative Procedure Act, in terms of the implementation of the principle of reliance protection as well as the public interests, the legislature set up four models for coping with the withdrawal of the unlawful-beneficial administrative disposition, so that the law executor could find a most suitable model to solve the issues in the respective distinct cases.
■the choice between "withdrawal" and "no withdrawal"
■the choice between "ineffective retroactively" and "ineffective non-retroactivity"
■the choice between "return of the received benefits (including the scope of the return)" and "no return of the received benefits"
■the choice between "compensation (including the amount of the compensation)" and "no compensation"
This article proposes that the cases involving a beneficial administrative disposition which grants benefits by "money payment or the delivery of the divisible things" should simply apply to the first two models (on the consecutive payment cases) or the first three models (on the one-time payment cases), whereas the last model has been incorporated into either of the above for consideration, instead of omitting it. However, from the case laws, there has not been much discussions on the issue of "whether it is ineffective retroactively or not" and tend to conclude that a withdrawal would automatically result in a retroactivity; and in the meantime ignore the model of whether there should be "ineffective retroactively or not."
The biggest issue involved is that, in a case involving either a "money payment or a delivery of the divisible things," whether or not there is detrimental reliance, the beneficiary shall be subject to the reliance protection when he or she had consumed the money received or made an irreparable recovery on the divisible things. The present article suggests that first: the consumption of the money or the divisible things should be interpreted as a likelihood of action in reliance; second, a comprehensive analysis on the facts should be made in the respective case to decide which model to apply-"withdrawal and retroactivity," "withdrawal but no retroactivity" or even "no withdrawal?"
|
| 目 次： |
壹、序說
一、「依法行政」與「信賴保護」角力下的「違法授益行政處分撤銷」制度
二、思考導引案例
三、問題提出
四、金錢或可分物之給付
貳、我國「違法授益行政處分撤銷」制度之分析
一、受益人主張信賴保護而排拒「行政處分撤銷」之要件
二、以「信賴是否值得保護」與「法益衡量」所調控之可能選項
參、德國聯邦行政程序法「違法授益行政處分撤銷」制度之比較
一、單獨規定「金錢或可分物授益行政處分」之撤銷（§48IIVwVfG）
二、德國聯邦行政程序法第 48 條所稱「信賴值得保護」包含「公私法益衡量之結論」
三、德國聯邦行政程序法第 49a 條有關授益行政處分溯及失效後受領利益返還規定之比較
四、簡評
肆、保訓會與行政法院實務見解之觀察與評析
一、前引思考導引案例評析
二、實務案例觀察與評析
伍、結語
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|